NationStates Jolt Archive

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?

why do they get to drill and I do not?
Because it's mine. Find your own.

Because they can get to it better than you can with your shovel. :p

anything I pay for I own, I can own trees, rocks, land, animals, food, appliances, ect. (well, I can't own people, I can only rent them.)

how do you justify owning any of your possesions?

First you take land by force, and then it belongs to you because you could cause more pain and death than the other guy. Then you own the land for as long as you claim it, somebody gives you something for it, or until someone with a more guns takes it away.

It's mine! It's mine, goddamn you!

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?
How do you justify communal ownership? It just turned out this way, partly because we're wired to claim resources for ourselves and our "tribe".

I don't know if there is any justification for owning property. I just think it is a matter of convenience. If I can't own my TV then anyone can come in and take it and I won't be able to watch Doctor Who without wondering into somebody else's house and taking theirs. In fact, if I like their house I might say there because if there is no property it isn't their house. If I can own a TV it is convenient for me. If I can own a house it is convenient for my family. If I can own a farm it makes growing crops much easier. If I can own the crops I grow then I can sell them and buy other property. Obviously if say 1% of the population own everything then property is not convenient for the vast majority of people. Property is also not convenient if I have to pay for each breath of air I take. But within sensible limits property is a concept that can make our lives more convenient and benefit all.

Ownership may be an illusion but stewardship or renting are quite real.

Someone has to take responsibility for property and possession of property saddles you with both it's benefits and responibilities.

"You can own the Earth and still
All you'll own is Earth until..."

Childish perhaps.. but it fits.

anything I pay for I own, I can own trees, rocks, land, animals, food, appliances, ect. (well, I can't own people, I can only rent them.)

how do you justify owning any of your possesions?
Surely land had an original owner in the first place who sold it to someone else, and so on. How did the original owner come to own it?

Surely land had an original owner in the first place who sold it to someone else, and so on. How did the original owner come to own it?


I covered that one

Surely land had an original owner in the first place who sold it to someone else, and so on. How did the original owner come to own it?
He laid a claim to it and was able to defend that claim, or if not it changed hands.

Surely land had an original owner in the first place who sold it to someone else, and so on. How did the original owner come to own it?

The original owner found it, and chased off the squirrels. The next owner killed the original owner. Eventually, someone decided it was more civilized to buy and sell, instead of just killing the previous owner.

Scarcity.

In a situation of natural abundance of everything there would be no property.

Without property ownership, force would supersede hard work. You work hard to buy or find a good piece of land, or some nice things. without ownership someone else could just come along and take it. they shouldnt, and in an ideal world they wouldnt, but bad people necessitate ownership. its the lesser of two evils I guess. if only life was like the settlers. i love that game.

Without property ownership, force would supersede hard work. You work hard to buy or find a good piece of land, or some nice things. without ownership someone else could just come along and take it. they shouldnt, and in an ideal world they wouldnt, but bad people necessitate ownership. its the lesser of two evils I guess. if only life was like the settlers. i love that game.
I think I agree with this.

Scarcity.

In a situation of natural abundance of everything there would be no property.

Nope.

Property is an objective moral principle, not an economic construct. As such, it exists regardless of economic conditions.

Now, it is true that in a state of abundance, due to the supply the market value of property would be zero; however, it would still be property and it would be illegitimate to forcibly take it from one.

Now, it is true that in a state of abundance, due to the supply the market value of property would be zero; however, it would still be property and it would be illegitimate to forcibly take it from one.
The illegitimacy of taking property derives from the value of the property itself. Please distinguish between property and possession. That I possess something, simply means that it is associated with me. If it is my property then I have the right of disposal over that thing. Where there is an abundance, the right of disposal ceases to make any sense, so property also ceases to be a meaningful concept. You would only be left with the concept of current possession.

Additionally the protection provided in law against the forcible removal of property exists only due to scarcity. If there were an abundance, then no such law would exist. Is there a law that prevents me breathing the air that is on your property? Do I own the air that is in my lungs? In both cases the answer is no, as there is an abundance of air. I clearly have the air in my lungs in my possession, but it is not my property.

anything I pay for I own, I can own trees, rocks, land, animals, food, appliances, ect. (well, I can't own people, I can only rent them.)

how do you justify owning any of your possesions?

Why can't you own people if you can own other animals?

Why can't you own people if you can own other animals?

Because humans have this nasty "independent" streak.


I'm surprised nobody has said it yet.....
"All your base are belong to us"

Why can't you own people if you can own other animals?
because it's illegal to own people?:confused:

because it's illegal to own people?:confused:
Haha owned!

because it's illegal to own people?:confused:

You can buy people in asia. :)

I think this might be Locke's justification for property -

Nothing in the state of nature is property, but by working with what is provided for naturally you change it and it becomes your property. Essentially your effort is what makes it your property. For instance, in the state of nature there might be a tree that is growing and bearing fruit. The fruit belongs to no one and anyone who needs it make consume it. However, you might pick the fruit and then make into jam/jelly. That jam/jelly, through your work is now your property, despite you not owning the fruit to begin with. If you began to care for that tree by watering and tending to it then it, and the land in which it grew, would become your property.

However, I'm not sure what Locke said about inheritance and trade. Can you own something that you did not make? Well, legally we can, but Marx implies that this isn't a good with his concept of alienation.

You can buy people in asia. :)
how sad :(

how much does one cost?;)

You can buy people in Europe and America.

You can buy people in Europe and America.
no, legally you can rent people in America, not buy.

how sad :(

how much does one cost?;)

Like $30,000 for a kid. >.>

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?

Because they found it. They spent the time, money, and effort of finding it, they committed their capital to building the equipment to getting it out of the ground, they are committing their resources to using it, they have exchanged capital with the government to legally take control of the property. It's theirs, for the same reason that any product of your work, value, or mind is yours.

It's incident to the right to life. If you have a right to your life, than you have a right to those things which are a product of your individual living action, and a right to the effort, work, power, and value you exert or expend to preserve the life you have a right to, and the products of that work and effort.

Because they found it. They spent the time, money, and effort of finding it, they committed their capital to building the equipment to getting it out of the ground, they are committing their resources to using it, they have exchanged capital with the government to legally take control of the property. It's theirs, for the same reason that any product of your work, value, or mind is yours.

It's incident to the right to life. If you have a right to your life, than you have a right to those things which are a product of your individual living action, and a right to the effort, work, power, and value you exert or expend to preserve the life you have a right to, and the products of that work and effort.

Also note how stupid it is when someone goes on your property to take your money or items cause they can. :O

Also note how stupid it is when someone goes on your property to take your money or items cause they can. :O

Are you agreeing with me? :confused:

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?
Homesteading.

Property use is fine, property ownership is not.

Nope.

Property is an objective moral principle, not an economic construct. As such, it exists regardless of economic conditions.Nope. It exists whenever a society or a government says it exists, as it is a positive right.

capitalists didnt invent owning land. they inherited the idea. its not theirs to justify or not.

the ownership of land and natural resources allows for the orderly exploitation of both.

I have no problem with people owning things. If they didn't how would I learn to steal?

Property use is fine, property ownership is not.
Can't have one without the other, O Ye Who Steals The Concept.


Nope. It exists whenever a society or a government says it exists, as it is a positive right.
No, it is not.

Can't have one without the other, O Ye Who Steals The Concept.

of course you can - it's been done

No, it is not.Yes, it is. The right to use exclusively, and to reserve usage is a positive right granted by governments or societies.

Homesteading.

nah. at least not self-evidently or obviously.

of course you can - it's been done
No, you can't, and no, it never has.

Property implies ownership.

nah. at least not self-evidently or obviously.
Sure it is.

Yes, it is. The right to use exclusively, and to reserve usage is a positive right granted by governments or societies.
No, it is not. A positive right is something which means you must do something for someone. Property is not a positive right.

I suggest you read up on what property is--and none of that idiotic Marxist or Proudhonian bull that's been refuted to death.

No, it is not. A positive right is something which means you must do something for someone. Property is not a positive right.No, a positive right is something which is granted by a society and does not exist in nature.

I suggest you read up on what property is--and none of that idiotic Marxist or Proudhonian bull that's been refuted to death.I suggest you read up on Bakunin or Proudhon before propagating the myth that they've been refuted.

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?

Property is justified in its necessity for our survival.

Legal protection of property is justified in creating a society where you aren't required to fight for your property or survival.

This would mean that any legal protection of property that causes people to resort to violence for their own survival would not be justified.

What does this mean for capitalism?

That is where I am at right now.

If you can keep other people from keeping you off the land, you own it.
If you completely obliterate it beyond use, you owned it. ;)

I think this might be Locke's justification for property -

Nothing in the state of nature is property, but by working with what is provided for naturally you change it and it becomes your property. Essentially your effort is what makes it your property. For instance, in the state of nature there might be a tree that is growing and bearing fruit. The fruit belongs to no one and anyone who needs it make consume it. However, you might pick the fruit and then make into jam/jelly. That jam/jelly, through your work is now your property, despite you not owning the fruit to begin with. If you began to care for that tree by watering and tending to it then it, and the land in which it grew, would become your property.

However, I'm not sure what Locke said about inheritance and trade. Can you own something that you did not make? Well, legally we can, but Marx implies that this isn't a good with his concept of alienation.

That's a good synopsis of Lockean property rights, although you also need to note that initially in the state of nature, no one was allowed to own more than they could consume without spoilage. If you were simply hoarding apples from that tree until they all spoiled without using them or consuming them, then you were using more than your fair share of natural resources. Nevertheless, there are some things that man can accrue that both have little use value and yet do not spoil. Gold is one such example. Therefore, since it is in the spoilage that Locke finds sin, and gold does not spoil, there is no sin in accruing as much gold as you want, nor in using that gold as a medium of exchange to accrue an unequal amount of property. I'm not sure if inheritance was something he paid much mind to, but that roughly describes his account of the origin of trade and inequality of possession in the state of nature. Because of our need to protect this property, we enter into civil society.

Can't have one without the other, O Ye Who Steals The Concept.

I steal your car and drive to Disneyland.

Do I own your car, or am I not using it?

Property implies ownership.

Property implies a bundle of rights inbetween people concerning things, ownership being only one. Why do you suppose it to be an indespensible quality of property?

First you take land by force, and then it belongs to you because you could cause more pain and death than the other guy. Then you own the land for as long as you claim it, somebody gives you something for it, or until someone with a more guns takes it away.
Yep. That’s the way the world works, and I’m perfectly fine with that. Nothing you or anybody else can do will ever change that, so you might as well accept it.

Property implies a bundle of rights inbetween people concerning things, ownership being only one. Why do you suppose it to be an indespensible quality of property.

man, there i was writing almost exactly this, but then i hit preview and saw you beat me to it. bastard.

should probably add 'privileges' and 'obligations' up there in the bundle though

man, there i was writing almost exactly this, but then i hit preview and saw you beat me to it. bastard.

You just want everyone to think that you are as smart as me.

should probably add 'privileges' and 'obligations' up there in the bundle though

Those can easily be swept up into the rights category. But including them may have avoided future battles over the nature of rights.

Property implies a bundle of rights inbetween people concerning things, ownership being only one. Why do you suppose it to be an indespensible quality of property?

Presumably because the labor used to create your property, or to acquire the means to purchase it, infuses it with that sense of ownership. This fact is only heightened by the further fact that if you didn't have the indispensable claim to ownership of property, then you would not necessarily have the ability to claim that which you require to survive. Since it is rational to do everything in your power to survive, it necessarily follows that it is rational to claim something as your indispensable property.

Presumably because the labor used to create your property, or to acquire the means to purchase it, infuses it with that sense of ownership.

though this isn't technically true cross-culturally

though this isn't technically true cross-culturally

You'll have to be more specific. . .

No, a positive right is something which is granted by a society and does not exist in nature.
Wrong.

(a) Negative Rights: A has a "negative" right against B if what B must do in order to respect it is to refrain from various possible acts, namely ones that would hinder, or interfere with, A's attempts to do x, or (if this is different) damage A's person, or, more generally, worsen A's situation in whatever respect is in question in the context in which the right under discussion obtains or would obtain. The proponent of the right could further specify which sorts of interfering actions were forbidden - perhaps not all. For instance, B may not do what would make it outrightly impossible for A to do x, no matter how hard A tries, but perhaps B may do certain acts that would make it slightly more difficult for A to do x.

(b) Positive Rights: A has the "Positive" right to do x if B must not only refrain from hindering A, but also do things which would positively assist A to do x if A is otherwise unable to do x unaided. A further important clause would also except the case where A is assisted by the purely voluntary actions of others. A has the positive right to do or to have x only if that right requires certain people, B, at least in certain possible circumstances, to assist A in doing x, or to supply A with x, whether B acts willingly or not. Obviously, the question of how much B would have to help A, that is, how great a cost B would have to bear before his obligation ceased, is a very important question and would need to be somehow specified by the propounder.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/libertarianism/index.html

Both Bakunin's and Proudhon's nonsense have been soundly refuted time and again.

I steal your car and drive to Disneyland.

Do I own your car, or am I not using it?
I'm wondering how your example is valid, given that theft requires the concept of "rightfully owned property".


Property implies a bundle of rights inbetween people concerning things, ownership being only one. Why do you suppose it to be an indespensible quality of property?
Because "unowned property" is a contradiction in terms. You can have something unowned, but it's only property when it is owned. It is an ownership-term.

I'm wondering how your example is valid, given that theft requires the concept of "rightfully owned property".

Your argument has that concept and I am analyzing it.

So if you say that I cannot have property usage without property ownership, does my appropriation of your car grant me ownership?

Because "unowned property" is a contradiction in terms. You can have something unowned, but it's only property when it is owned. It is an ownership-term.

Property is a term for interaction between people, not interaction between person and thing. So property in society could preclude all people from ownership.

So people can steal more things.

Your argument has that concept and I am analyzing it.

So if you say that I cannot have property usage without property ownership, does my appropriation of your car grant me ownership?
If you're meaning that you think that my stance is that if you use something, it is your property, then you need a lighter to set your strawman on fire.


Property is a term for interaction between people,
No, it's a term for the relationship between a person and a thing which is not a person.

If you're meaning that you think that my stance is that if you use something, it is your property, then you need a lighter to set your strawman on fire.

You said that you cannot have usage without ownership:

Property use is fine, property ownership is not.

Can't have one without the other, O Ye Who Steals The Concept.

Perhaps you should reword this, as I can show that property ownership is possible without use, as well as property use is possible without ownership.

Unless of course you say that usage conveys ownership.

No, it's a term for the relationship between a person and a thing which is not a person.

It expresses what obligations and privileges all people have towards each other in regard to an object.

Wrong.Correct. From www.dictionary.com :

Positive

9b: Of or relating to laws imposed by human authority rather than by nature or reason alone: “the glaring discrepancy between American positive law and natural rights” (David Brion Davis).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=positive

Therefore, a positive right would be one imposed by human authority rather than by nature or reason alone.

Correct.
Wrong. I quoted you the proper usage of positive/negative rights.

Dictionary.com does not use the proper philosophical definitions. In the future, you should use the proper philosophical definitions of terms in a philosophical discussion.

You said that you cannot have usage without ownership:
No, I did not. The item in question refers to Jello's idiotic claim that "property ownership" is not fine. But you cannot have the concept of "property" without the concept of "ownership"! It's like having the concept of "theft" without the concept of "rightfully/justly owned property". It's a stolen concept fallacy.


It expresses what obligations and privileges all people have towards each other in regard to an object.
And that there is a relation between a person and said object.

Wrong. I quoted you the proper usage of positive/negative rights.

Dictionary.com does not use the proper philosophical definitions. In the future, you should use the proper philosophical definitions of terms in a philosophical discussion.No, you quoted me Jan Narveson's usage of positive/negative rights.

No, you quoted me Jan Narveson's usage of positive/negative rights.
No, I quoted you the actual philosophical usage vis-a-vis philosophy of ethics.

You are using some quasi-legalistic definition, which is not proper to use in this case.

I think property is a very destructive, disunifying concept that should have been abandoned about a century ago.

No, I quoted you the actual philosophical usage vis-a-vis philosophy of ethics.

You are using some quasi-legalistic definition, which is not proper to use in this case.Even if your term was the actual philosophical usage and mine wasn't, given that ownership is a legal right, it would make sense to use a legal definition.

Property use is fine, property ownership is not.

Nope. It exists whenever a society or a government says it exists, as it is a positive right.

Incorrect.

Property is an objective moral principle, stemming logically from man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest for survival. Thus, the existence of property rights is a consequence of one's own existence. It does not exist by government fiat.

Incorrect.

Property is an objective moral principle, stemming logically from man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest for survival. Thus, the existence of property rights is a consequence of one's own existence. It does not exist by government fiat.Nope. Ownership rights, include, among other things, a reservation to use. There needn't be a reservation to use in order to survive, all one needs is the ability to use property. Ownership hinders the survival of those who do not own.

I think property is a very destructive, disunifying concept that should have been abandoned about a century ago.
In what manner is it a "very destructive, disuinifying concept"?

Even if your term was the actual philosophical usage and mine wasn't, given that ownership is a legal right,
No, it's not. There have been historical cases of property rights without a legal system or government.

Maybe you really ought to put down those idiotic Bakunin and Proudhon books. They've warped your mind.

No, it's not. There have been historical cases of property rights without a legal system or government.I'm aware that there have been historical cases of property rights without a government, but it's entirely possible to have a legal system without a government.

Nope. Ownership rights, include, among other things, a reservation to use. There needn't be a reservation to use in order to survive, all one needs is the ability to use property. Ownership hinders the survival of those who do not own.
Nonsense! No one has a right to (positive right, for those like Jello who are so warped by commie nonsense) any specific thing. To say that my ownership of something has made you worse off (hindering your survival) is to say that you had the right to it in the first place. Only if you actually DID have that right would you be able to make the claim. But if there's an apple tree out there and I pick an apple--I now own the apple. Does that hinder your survival? NO!

This is why Marxists/Bakuninists/Proudhonians/any flavor of commie should never post about politics, economics, or ethics: they haven't the first clue as to what they are talking about.

Nonsense! No one has a right to (positive right, for those like Jello who are so warped by commie nonsense) any specific thing. To say that my ownership of something has made you worse off (hindering your survival) is to say that you had the right to it in the first place. Only if you actually DID have that right would you be able to make the claim. I do have the right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my own surivival, as do you.

But if there's an apple tree out there and I pick an apple--I now own the apple. Does that hinder your survival? NO!No, but if you claimed ownership of the tree, prevented me from picking an apple, and got a bunch of people to protect your ownership of the tree, then that would hinder my survival.

No, but if you claimed ownership of the tree, prevented me from picking an apple, and got a bunch of people to protect your ownership of the tree, then that would hinder my survival.
No, you would simply have to go get your own food elsewhere. Or trade with BAAWA to get his apples.

I do have the right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my own surivival, as do you.
The problem with applying that line of reasoning today (and this was true in the 19-th century as well) is that one of the things that you need to survive is food. And the earth does not produce enough food on it's own for everyone to survive. So you need people to produce things, which means that they must do work some time before they are able to consume the fruit of their work. Which means that you need them to act as though they would be able to reserve the use of their property some time in the future. And unless you claim the right to have slaves (and force them to act that way) that means that you need them to be able to reserve the future use of their property, IE to have property rights.

No, you would simply have to go get your own food elsewhere. Or trade with BAAWA to get his apples.There are potentially ownership claims on all sources of food, so that wouldn't be possible. I shouldn't have to trade with BAAWA as his claim of ownership (like all such claims) is invalid.

The problem with applying that line of reasoning today (and this was true in the 19-th century as well) is that one of the things that you need to survive is food. And the earth does not produce enough food on it's own for everyone to survive. So you need people to produce things, which means that they must do work some time before they are able to consume the fruit of their work. Which means that you need them to act as though they would be able to reserve the use of their property some time in the future. And unless you claim the right to have slaves (and force them to act that way) that means that you need them to be able to reserve the future use of their property, IE to have property rights.I never said that there were no property rights - property rights are based upon use.
I would argue that a functioning society would allow reservations of use, and that certain reservations to use are acceptable, but this would be a positive right.

There are potentially ownership claims on all sources of food, so that wouldn't be possible. I shouldn't have to trade with BAAWA as his claim of ownership (like all such claims) is invalid.
You can still go to somebody else and trade. Besides, even if you couldn't get food elsewhere property rights would still not hurt your survival, because if there were no property rights and there were as many people on the earth as there currently is, then all food would already have been eaten.

I never said that there were no property rights - property rights are based upon use.
It is true that property rights are aquired by using something previously unowned. But how do you reconcile accepting property rights with saying that all claims of ownership are false? Property rights are the rights of owners.

I would argue that a functioning society would allow reservations of use, and that certain reservations to use are acceptable, but this would be a positive right.
What reservations of use would be permissible then, your honor?;)

Property is an objective moral principle, stemming logically from man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest for survival. Thus, the existence of property rights is a consequence of one's own existence. It does not exist by government fiat.

What happens when property rights create a situation where people cannot act in their own rational self-interest for survival?

I do have the right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my own surivival, as do you.
You don't have the right to take that which I have just so you can survive. Otherwise, you hold that there is such a thing as a positive right while denying that it is good! That's called "stealing the concept".


No, but if you claimed ownership of the tree, prevented me from picking an apple, and got a bunch of people to protect your ownership of the tree, then that would hinder my survival.
Nonsense.

You can still go to somebody else and trade. Besides, even if you couldn't get food elsewhere property rights would still not hurt your survival, because if there were no property rights and there were as many people on the earth as there currently is, then all food would already have been eaten.Firstly, if this is the case, then I would argue that if there were no ownership rights, then there wouldn't be as many people as their currently are. I also doubt this claim, it's perfectly possible for an individual or a group of people to come together and farm a piece of land.

It is true that property rights are aquired by using something previously unowned. But how do you reconcile accepting property rights with saying that all claims of ownership are false? Property rights are the rights of owners.Ownership can be related to use, but is not always.

What reservations of use would be permissible then, your honor?;)Well, I'm not going to name all of them, because some of them would depend upon the particular conditions of the society one is living in, but I would say that it's permissable for a farmer to farm their crops and then can the remainder to get him and his family through the winter where there are no crops being harvested, as a for instance. They aren't using the crops at the moment, but they will be, and they will need them for their survival, so I think that is one reservation of use that a society should protect.

You don't have the right to take that which I have just so you can survive. Otherwise, you hold that there is such a thing as a positive right while denying that it is good! That's called "stealing the concept"No. I would hope that if a society is going to grant the positive right of ownership then it would also grant the positive right of providing people with what they need for their basic necessities, if not more. The positive right of ownership in and of itself is not a good thing.

Incidentally, I find it odd that you seem to consider all positive rights good, as the positive right to healthcare, for instance, would seem to be against your ideology.

Nonsense.Really? How am I supposed to harvest, grow, or hunt my own food if all the land is owned?

No. I would hope that if a society is going to grant the positive right of ownership
So you're using it in the "legal" sense...


then it would also grant the positive right of providing people with what they need for their basic necessities,
And now in the ethical sense.

That's called EQUIVOCATION/AMPHIBOLY.

You. Lose.


Incidentally, I find it odd that you seem to consider all positive rights good,
Legal sense...


as the positive right to healthcare,
Ethical sense.

You. Lose.


Really? How am I supposed to harvest, grow, or hunt my own food if all the land is owned?
Trade. You ridiculously assume that you would have nothing to begin with. What a load of Marxist garbage.

But if there's an apple tree out there and I pick an apple--I now own the apple.

And here we see that Bawaa's justification for property ultimately comes down to "first come, first served"

And here we see that Bawaa's justification for property ultimately comes down to "first come, first served"
That is an aspect of it. But you do have to actually do something to make it yours.

http://againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.html

That is an aspect of it. But you do have to actually do something to make it yours.

http://againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.html
The problem with this is that nothing works in isolation.

Say I'm the first comer to a plot of land, plant it, work it, and make a field.
However, next door, my neighbour is digging underneath the field to make a large parking garage.

As he's careful to go deep enough to not disturb my crops, he's not using what I am, and I'm not using what he is.

Things work just fine until I get a bigger tractor for my fields. When my tractor falls through, whose property rights have been violated?

My thoughts are that ideally natural property, that is things and land that is not produced by human labour, should not be owned, but instead should be treated as a communal resource and protected as such.

anything I pay for I own, I can own trees, rocks, land, animals, food, appliances, ect. (well, I can't own people, I can only rent them.)

how do you justify owning any of your possesions?
You can buy people. You might not have any legal title to them, but in effect that's probably just an added convinience.

Nothing in the state of nature is property, but by working with what is provided for naturally you change it and it becomes your property.
Nothing on earth is (so far as I know) outside of a state of nature.
Given this problem, Locke's theory falls to pieces at the outset.

No, a positive right is something which is granted by a society and does not exist in nature.
In philosophy positive right refers to a right that requires others act in order to meet that right (for instance a right to food implies that food must be supplied to you), where as a negative right refers to a right that requires non-interference from others (for instance the right to be free from assault implies a necessary inaction by others ie not assaulting you).
Therefore, a positive right would be one imposed by human authority rather than by nature or reason alone.
Which in the case of many people is essentially saying a positive right is one that actually exists, a negative right is imaginary. I know of no 'rights' that stem from nature or reason alone. I know of no reason in the absence of reasoners and I do not know that nature reasons, and the only rights I am aware of are those reasoned and imposed by humans (who by virtue of that imposition become authorities).

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?
It's called "incentive." People tend to work harder and more efficiently when they can reasonably expect to be rewarded for doing so. :rolleyes:

The problem with this is that nothing works in isolation.

Say I'm the first comer to a plot of land, plant it, work it, and make a field.
However, next door, my neighbour is digging underneath the field to make a large parking garage.
And?


As he's careful to go deep enough to not disturb my crops, he's not using what I am, and I'm not using what he is.

Things work just fine until I get a bigger tractor for my fields. When my tractor falls through, whose property rights have been violated?
Yours.


My thoughts are that ideally natural property, that is things and land that is not produced by human labour, should not be owned, but instead should be treated as a communal resource and protected as such.
4 words: Tragedy. Of. The. Commons.

4 words: Tragedy. Of. The. Commons.

You assume society can't organize itself to make sure there's someone who's job it is to look after the land.

What happens when property rights create a situation where people cannot act in their own rational self-interest for survival?
Example?

You assume society can't organize itself to make sure there's someone who's job it is to look after the land.
No, I don't assume that at all. Please try again.

In what manner is it a "very destructive, disuinifying concept"?
It is destructive and disunifying in that it creates two classes, those who have a given thing, and those who don't.

Example?

Someone is forced to sell their labor at unreasonably low levels to survive. Hell, any factor on the free market that forces labor cost down below equilibrium would be an example. Don't tell me there aren't any.

Example?
A person who cannot earn their own subsistence based on their own means of production, nor based on 'opportunites' offered by those who own greater means of production.
Such as a situation in which subsistence can only be achieved by accepting wage labour under conditions that cause permenant negative consequences for the labourer's physical well-being.
Or a situation when despite knowing the (permenant) harm it will cause them, a person sends their young children to labour in a sweatshop because there is no other way of keeping the family fed and alive.
Or how about a situation where a family is stuck between starvation or selling their 11 year old daughter to a brothel?

Seems prettty clear to me that none of the options in the examples above are the options that anyone would describe as promoting rational self interest, but rather as desperate responses to situations in which maintaining (much less promoting) rational self interest is quite simply not one of the available options.

No, I don't assume that at all. Please try again.

Why would communally held land that has people who are compensated to look after it be more likely to be looked after poorly then privately owned land?

It is destructive and disunifying in that it creates two classes, those who have a given thing, and those who don't.
That's neither destructive nor disunifying. And frankly, I have my body--no one else does. So I guess that being alive is destructive and disunifying, according to your line of thought. We must all now kill ourselves to rectify the situation.

Oh wait--that would be really damned stupid.

Just like your line of thought.

Someone is forced to sell their labor
I meant a real example, not some Marxist fantasy nonsense.

A person who cannot earn their own subsistence based on their own means of production, nor based on 'opportunites' offered by those who own greater means of production.
Real world example?


Such as a situation in which subsistence can only be achieved by accepting wage labour under conditions that cause permenant negative consequences for the labourer's physical well-being.
As opposed to, say, death?


Or a situation when despite knowing the (permenant) harm it will cause them, a person sends their young children to labour in a sweatshop because there is no other way of keeping the family fed and alive.
As opposed to, say, death?


Or how about a situation where a family is stuck between starvation or selling their 11 year old daughter to a brothel?
And that happens how often in places where the economy hasn't been wrecked by socialism or isn't some catholic country where birth control is a sin?

I meant a real example, not some Marxist fantasy nonsense.
Real examples, like the ones in post 93 for instance?

Why would communally held land that has people who are compensated to look after it be more likely to be looked after poorly then privately owned land?
1. Why would they be compensated?

2. Compensation can't happen in the land you desire.

3. I never said anything of what you think I did. Please try again.

Real examples, like the ones in post 93 for instance?
No, I meant real examples.

Real world example?
Certainly all 3 examples are descriptive of real world occurances.

As opposed to, say, death?
Yes as opposed to death, in other words the decision between two alternatives both of which go against rational self interest (ie permenant harm and short term death

As opposed to, say, death?
Aha, see above.

And that happens how often in places where the economy hasn't been wrecked by socialism or isn't some catholic country where birth control is a sin?
What has that to do with anything? Whether or not places where such occurances are ongoing have been 'wrecked by socialism or is a catholoic country where birth control is a sin' is not relevent to what was being discussed.

No, I meant real examples.
Er if examples that describe the actual happenstances in peoples' real lives in the real world dont pass as 'real examples' what exactly does?

How about approximately 15-20 million examples? That's the numbers of people believed to have indefinately enslaved themselves into bonded laour in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Given that their obligation is open-ended (the person they are bonded to will decide if and when their obligation is ended) and given that being a bonded labourer is negative to one's self interest rather than nuetral or advantageous, it seems like approximately 15-20 million examples for you right there.

That's neither destructive nor disunifying. And frankly, I have my body--no one else does. So I guess that being alive is destructive and disunifying, according to your line of thought. We must all now kill ourselves to rectify the situation.

Oh wait--that would be really damned stupid.

Just like your line of thought.
Thanks for taking the time to clearly illustrate for me the reason as to why I have no great urge to share any more of them with you. Because, when you really get down to it, all any of us 'has' are our thoughts - and from what I read of your thoughts, I know just how valuable my thoughts are to me - and how cheap and tarnished yours are by comparison.

So once again, thanks. You blistering-blue bashi-bazouk, you.

Property is an objective moral principle, not an economic construct. As such, it exists regardless of economic conditions.

Objective moral principle. Right.

If you can keep other people from keeping you off the land, you own it.
If you completely obliterate it beyond use, you owned it. ;)

A variation on the Paul Atreides definition of property.

Objective moral principle. Right.
I had the same thought, but figured rather than attempt to engage in a conversation about whether or not property rights are something that does not actually exist (so far as I can tell), I'd just let my eyes slip on by that comment almost as though it were not there....:p

1. Why would they be compensated?

2. Compensation can't happen in the land you desire.

3. I never said anything of what you think I did. Please try again.


They would be compensated because the community chooses to have it's land maintained, as it's in their best interests.

Compensation can happen, whether in the form of money, supplies, services or a mixture of all of the above.

I never said you said it, I said you thought it.

Your argument has that concept and I am analyzing it.

So if you say that I cannot have property usage without property ownership, does my appropriation of your car grant me ownership?

If you're meaning that you think that my stance is that if you use something, it is your property, then you need a lighter to set your strawman on fire.

Not a strawman:

Property use is fine, property ownership is not.
Can't have one without the other, O Ye Who Steals The Concept.

He's showing that you can have property use without property ownership.

I had the same thought, but figured rather than attempt to engage in a conversation about whether or not property rights are something that does not actually exist (so far as I can tell), I'd just let my eyes slip on by that comment almost as though it were not there....:p

Temptation and a new fast connection drive me to comment on things I ought to just ignore. That whole is-ought gap thingy.

No, I meant real examples.

Bzzzt! You have failed your Turing test. Report to the GC for immediate deletion.

So you're using it in the "legal" sense...

And now in the ethical sense.

That's called EQUIVOCATION/AMPHIBOLY.

You. Lose.


Legal sense...

Ethical sense.

You. Lose.How odd, I never said that it would be more or less ethical to provide people with the things they need to survive and healthcare. You lose.

Trade. You ridiculously assume that you would have nothing to begin with. What a load of Marxist garbage.I never said that I would have nothing to begin with. Trading for my food would not be farming, hunting, or gathering it.

In philosophy positive right refers to a right that requires others act in order to meet that right (for instance a right to food implies that food must be supplied to you), where as a negative right refers to a right that requires non-interference from others (for instance the right to be free from assault implies a necessary inaction by others ie not assaulting you).Naturally, if a government (or society) grants a positive right, it either acts or appoints people to act in order to meet that right.

Which in the case of many people is essentially saying a positive right is one that actually exists, a negative right is imaginary. I know of no 'rights' that stem from nature or reason alone. I know of no reason in the absence of reasoners and I do not know that nature reasons, and the only rights I am aware of are those reasoned and imposed by humans (who by virtue of that imposition become authorities).I take it you don't believe in the concept of natural rights, or, to paraphrase (U.S.) Constitutional language, truths (rights) that are self-evident?

The justification for property is that we are better off with it, provided of course we are all allowed to have some. If property made us worse off then maybe we should get rid of the concept, but since we generally agree that it doesn't there is no point.

Naturally, if a government (or society) grants a positive right, it either acts or appoints people to act in order to meet that right.
You seem to misunderstand. The distinction between a positive right and a negative right in discussions about rights is traditionally (so far as I know) the one employed in philosophy - positive rights are those that require others to act and negative rights are those that require others to refrain from acting. A right to healthcare is a positive right -if 1 has a right to it someone has an obligation to provide it. I right to be free from assault is a negative right, if someone has such a right every other person has an obligation to refrain from assaulting them.
It's simply a linguistic convention within philosophy and doesnt prove anything either way.

I take it you don't believe in the concept of natural rights, or, to paraphrase (U.S.) Constitutional language, truths (rights) that are self-evident?
Fanciful stuff. What exactly do you mean by rights? I'm not at all aware of any 'natural rights' that have some kind of independent existence.

Certainly all 3 examples are descriptive of real world occurances.
No.



Yes as opposed to death, in other words the decision between two alternatives both of which go against rational self interest
No, they do not.


What has that to do with anything?
Everything, for those are pretty much the only places where anything you suggest would happen. IOW: it has nothing to do with any market economy/capitalism, but rather is a failing of socialism.

Er if examples that describe the actual happenstances in peoples' real lives in the real world dont pass as 'real examples' what exactly does?
Because those don't.


How about approximately 15-20 million examples?
...in socialist quasi-theocracies.

Thanks for taking the time to clearly illustrate for me the reason as to why I have no great urge to share any more of them with you.
Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate your cowardice. If you didn't want to know what I thought of your ideas, you shouldn't have posted them.

They would be compensated because the community chooses to have it's land maintained, as it's in their best interests.
So they have someone be the administrator. Now how will that work?


Compensation can happen, whether in the form of money, supplies, services or a mixture of all of the above.
Not if I understand the system you desire.


I never said you said it, I said you thought it.
I never thought it.

Bzzzt! You have failed your Turing test. Report to the GC for immediate deletion.
*yawn*

Wake me when you have something of value to offer.

How odd, I never said that it would be more or less ethical to provide people with the things they need to survive and healthcare. You lose.
I never said that you said that. You lose.

What I said is that you're constantly switching between the ethical and "legal" definition of the term "positive" and not distinguishing the two. THAT is the fallacy of equivocation, bucko.

You. Lose.


I never said that I would have nothing to begin with. Trading for my food would not be farming, hunting, or gathering it.
Then what is your problem?


Naturally, if a government (or society) grants a positive right,
"Legal" sense....


I take it you don't believe in the concept of natural rights, or, to paraphrase (U.S.) Constitutional language, truths (rights) that are self-evident?
That's not in the U.S. Constitution.

He's showing that you have property use without property ownership.
You can't have the CONCEPT of property WITHOUT the concept of OWNERSHIP. What the hell--can you not read? It has nothing to do with being able to use something even if you don't own it. It have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that if there is property, then necessarily someone OWNS it.

Otherwise, you engage in a stolen concept fallacy.

So yes--he did create a strawman, as you can clearly see.

Yours.
Why? When I work the ground on top, do I suddenly have ownership rights down to the core?

One might reasonably suggest, that since his parking garage was there before I changed the circumstances above by getting a new tractor, the fault was mine.

If not, then you have the problem where if someone starts polluting the ground-water by burying toxic waste on their "property", who's fault it is depends on who moved in first, and that simply seems too arbitrary to really be an ethical system.

Practical, I'll grant you.

4 words: Tragedy. Of. The. Commons.
I'll give you four back.
Managed. By. The. Community

In fact, I suggested such when I specifically said "and protected as such", perhaps you simply didn't understand what was meant there, in which case, you'd be equally unaware that you were constructing a straw-man.

It's a very pretty one though.

What is the justifaction for property?
How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on?

Ever watch nature shows? Like wild cats and other animals. Animals, that are not as highly intelligent as we, also claim terrritory. Claiming territory is like saying "this is mine", or "this is ours", so animals, at least in their minds, also own property.

Why would animals claim territory?
Simple. It's a means of survival. This territory provides their food and mating grounds which allows a species to increase their number.

Claiming territory, or ownership, is part of the Natural Law. We humans, being animals, are not excluded from this law, no matter the number of philosphies we generate to divorce ourselves from our genertic instructions.

i haven't bothered to read this thread cuz its long, i need a shower and i need to go to the shops. so i'll just post my opinions on property and then bugger off. :p

property is theft. there is no way around that without taking a whole lot of things as givens. like religion, in a way, because in order to accept their arguments you have to have faith in their central beliefs. so in order to defend private property you have to have faith in the individualists ideals such as: "an englishman's home is his castle"

posessions, on the other hand, are mine to use as long as i have use for them, after which they are free for anyone else to use. this gets around the usual argument against communal ownership which states that if there was no private ownership anyone could just walk in and take your stuff.

I meant a real example, not some Marxist fantasy nonsense.

Are you telling me that capitalism provides individuals with full power to serve their self-interests at all times?

iproperty is theft. there is no way around that without taking a whole lot of things as givens. like religion, in a way, because in order to accept their arguments you have to have faith in their central beliefs. so in order to defend private property you have to have faith in the individualists ideals such as: "an englishman's home is his castle"

posessions, on the other hand, are mine to use as long as i have use for them, after which they are free for anyone else to use. this gets around the usual argument against communal ownership which states that if there was no private ownership anyone could just walk in and take your stuff.

Good luck showing what constitutes property and what constitutes possessions. While it may be a dichotomy, you will not be able to show where one begins and one ends.

Good luck showing what constitutes property and what constitutes possessions. While it may be a dichotomy, you will not be able to show where one begins and one ends.

well how about this: property is something that is bought and sold, right to its use is held solely by the purchaser. posessions are things held by a person or group but which that person or group has no intrinsic right to keep it. i was not going for a dichotomy. possessions may be property if they are bought but that is external to the object and so the right to keep it is not intrinsic to the object. as soon as a property is lent, gifted or otherwise freely re-distributed it becomes a posession until such time as someone sells or buys it.

No.
I'm sorry but if real world doesnt in whatever lexicon you are employing mean real world kindly clarify what it does mean.

No, they do not.
And it would seem a novel definition of self interest is also operating in this unique lexicon of yours.


Everything, for those are pretty much the only places where anything you suggest would happen. IOW: it has nothing to do with any market economy/capitalism, but rather is a failing of socialism.
You are confused, the relevent trait/characteristic is the existence of the concept of property. Do try to stay on track.

Because those don't.
'Because they dont' is not a coherent answer to the query '...what exactly does'. Perhaps you lost track of the conversation...again.

...in socialist quasi-theocracies.I'm not sure how you lost track, but you issued a challenge for an example that what happened when property rights created a situation in some people cannot act in their own rational self interest. Instead of one example I've given you millions.

Now you are moving the goal posts going on about socialist quasi-theocracies....that is utterly irrelevent to your challenge and to my examples that more than meet that challenge.

Trying to move the goal posts now only makes you look like you've totally lost track of the conversation not to mention the challenge you issued....unless of course you dont merely look like you have lost track but actually have gotten so excited and caught up in dogmatism you have in fa fact (rather than mere pretence) actually lost track of the conversation, in which case you have my sympathies.

Would just like to point out that the perfect socialisy system is also the perfect capitalism - the perfect market.

This means there are no entry barriers to trade, no perverse goods, trends/fashions are relitivly unknown, there is no monopolys in place, including on natraul resources. Consumers have perfect market infomation.

This effectivly carries out the principle of each according who his needs, you get what you work for. Unforunetly it means that everything has to be privatised, and it is pretty hard on the unemployed/old/independents. also perefect markets dont exsit.

Instead goverments try to create perfect markets as near as possible (Sensible goverments anyway). Cpaitalist goverments normally do it by Tax and macro economic means, while socialists tend to get involved on the grass roots leval, directing resources and stating what people want (Which is often why socialist economies tend to be less efficent then socialist)

Property is an illusion and a very importent one established orignally on a first come, first serve basis. People like to own things,it makes them secure. it saves debate, everyone knows what belongs to who. If you want a fairish distributiuon, then you need goverment intervention - conucil housing etctra. this is the easiest way to do it.

well how about this: property is something that is bought and sold, right to its use is held solely by the purchaser. posessions are things held by a person or group but which that person or group has no intrinsic right to keep it. i was not going for a dichotomy. possessions may be property if they are bought but that is external to the object and so the right to keep it is not intrinsic to the object. as soon as a property is lent, gifted or otherwise freely re-distributed it becomes a posession until such time as someone sells or buys it.

Classify a condominium.

Why? When I work the ground on top, do I suddenly have ownership rights down to the core?
Hmmmm?

Oh, you think that I'm claiming you have ownership down to the core? Stupid you.

The other person affected the land you own negatively.


I'll give you four back.
Managed. By. The. Community
To which I will repeat: Tragedy. Of. The Commons.

property is theft.
Theft genetically relies on the concept of property to make sense, Proudhon.

Why won't that stolen concept fallacy die?

Are you telling me that capitalism provides individuals with full power to serve their self-interests at all times?
Are you saying that only if scarcity is eliminated can everyone serve their self-interest all the time?

I'm sorry but if real world doesnt in whatever lexicon you are employing mean real world kindly clarify what it does mean.
It means what it says.


And it would seem a novel definition of self interest is also operating in this unique lexicon of yours.
Nope. It's a perfectly normal one. You are the one making some novel use of the term "self-interest".



You are confused, the relevent trait/characteristic is the existence of the concept of property.
I'm not confused at all. Do try to stay on track.


'Because they dont' is not a coherent answer to the query '
Yes, it is.


Now you are moving the goal posts going on about socialist quasi-theocracies
Not moving them at all.

Do try to keep up.

Moral justifications aside...

I believe the economy functions better if people are allowed to own property, and I'd strongly prefer having the ability to own my own property that's private to myself.

So, it's more of a functional justification for me than a moral one.

Yeah, sure, you can be a capitalist whore and claim to own all the fucking land you want....until the VietCong tunnel into it and come up from underneath your ass waste the shit outta you with an AK.

It means what it says.
You already excluded what it says, so now by stating it does say what it says (having stated previously that it does not) you are contradicting yourself...

Nope. It's a perfectly normal one. You are the one making some novel use of the term "self-interest".
I do not believe that is the case. You'll need to be clearer if you wish me to understand otherwise.

I'm not confused at all. Do try to stay on track.
If you are not confused then you are being deliberately obtuse.

Yes, it is.
No it is not as any fluent-English speaking primary school aged child (ie 5-10) could ascertain; it isnt even grammatically coherent to offer an answer so phrased to a question so phrased. If English is your second language then I am happy to clarify the question so you comprehend it.

Not moving them at all.
Fine then , you left the goal posts where they were and changed the whole match venue....

Do try to keep up.
Er, good try, keep practising and one day you might be able to come up with text that is both your own and coherent....

You seem to misunderstand. The distinction between a positive right and a negative right in discussions about rights is traditionally (so far as I know) the one employed in philosophy - positive rights are those that require others to act and negative rights are those that require others to refrain from acting. A right to healthcare is a positive right -if 1 has a right to it someone has an obligation to provide it. I right to be free from assault is a negative right, if someone has such a right every other person has an obligation to refrain from assaulting them.
It's simply a linguistic convention within philosophy and doesnt prove anything either way.All right, then I'll drop this part of the subject.

Fanciful stuff. What exactly do you mean by rights? I'm not at all aware of any 'natural rights' that have some kind of independent existence.The right to exist, for instance, is in the realm of what people tend to call 'natural rights'.

I never said that you said that. You lose.

What I said is that you're constantly switching between the ethical and "legal" definition of the term "positive" and not distinguishing the two. THAT is the fallacy of equivocation, bucko.

You. Lose.I was never using the ethical definition of the term positive. Healthcare can be a legal right.

Then what is your problem?The problem is that if all land is owned, I would not have the ability to farm, hunt, or gather my food.

That's not in the U.S. Constitution.Technically, it's in the Declaration of Independence, so you're right on that.

All right, then I'll drop this part of the subject.
Ok, it really makes no material difference to the truth or otherwise of any of the points you seem to be making either way.;)

The right to exist, for instance, is in the realm of what people tend to call 'natural rights'.
Again this isnt clear. Do you mean a right extended to humans, to not be exterminated by another human being (or other human beings) or do you mean a right to have all the funds diverted out of education, law enforcment, etc into research to find a cure for a particular person's potentially fatal (but very rare) illness?

Or is it merely a right to forcably (ie against my will) have my (ostensibly spare) kidney removed in order to save your life from life threatening kidney failure?

Whatever it means it is no more or less natural than laws that restrict the dumping of toxic waste or make a woman the chattel of her husband.

Again this isnt clear. Do you mean a right extended to humans, to not be exterminated by another human being (or other human beings) or do you mean a right to have all the funds diverted out of education, law enforcment, etc into research to find a cure for a particular person's potentially fatal (but very rare) illness?

Or is it merely a right to forcably (ie against my will) have my (ostensibly spare) kidney removed in order to save your life from life threatening kidney failure?

Whatever it means it is no more or less natural than laws that restrict the dumping of toxic waste or make a woman the chattel of her husband.This is why I stated the right to exist, as opposed to the right to life. The right to life could employ anything out of the first two paragraphs. The right to exist, however, simply means that the very fact that we exist isn't determined by any manmade legal constructions or lack thereof.

This is why I stated the right to exist, as opposed to the right to life. The right to life could employ anything out of the first two paragraphs. The right to exist, however, simply means that the very fact that we exist isn't determined by any manmade legal constructions or lack thereof.
Legal regulations regarding contraception and abortion are manmade legal constructions and I believe their existence or lack there of is determinative of the existence of at least some human beings.

You already excluded what it says,
No, I didn't.



No it is not as any fluent-English speaking primary school aged child (ie 5-10) could ascertain;
Actually, it is.



Fine then , you left the goal posts where they were and changed the whole match venue....
Nope.


When you want to get back on topic, let me know.

I was never using the ethical definition of the term positive.
Yeah, you actually were when you claimed that it creates an obligation for someone to do something.


The problem is that if all land is owned, I would not have the ability to farm, hunt, or gather my food.
Why wouldn't you own any land? And why wouldn't you have the ability to farm, hunt, or gather your food?

When you want to get back on topic, let me know.
No thanks BAAWA, I prefer to have coherent conversations with rational mature folk who have a good grasp of English. I'm not sure which grounds you fail on, but the proof that you fail in at least one of these standards constitutes an ever-increasing percentage of this thread.:rolleyes:

No thanks BAAWA,
No problem. I'll see if I can find someone with whom I can have a coherent, rational, mature conversation. Clearly, I cannot find one with you.

No problem. I'll see if I can find someone with whom I can have a coherent, rational, mature conversation. Clearly, I cannot find one with you.
Why do you go out of your way to be so unpleasant?

Why do you go out of your way to be so unpleasant?

He acts like this on more than just this thread. I'd say that he was an impostor, but unfortunately he's not. There's no element of mockery or extremeness to the point of disbelief; he's just run-of-the-mill rude and irritating.

Why do you go out of your way to be so unpleasant?
Because they are unpleasant to me. Tit-for-tat.

....iterated prisoner's dilemma?

Because they are unpleasant to me. Tit-for-tat.
Well then, that's hardly justification for your having gone out of your way to call my way of thinking 'stupid', when I had said nothing at all unpleasant to you or to anybody else in this thread.

Perhaps you should re-read your posts and try looking at them from another person's perspective. I think you'll find, in my case anyway, that you went somewhat "over-the-top" in your responses. And that's unfortunate, as you're not encouraging discourse so much as discouraging points-of-view other than your own.

Not grounds for a particularly interesting conversation, not unless you're hoping to attract masochists.

Well then, that's hardly justification for your having gone out of your way to call my way of thinking 'stupid', when I had said nothing at all unpleasant to you or to anybody else in this thread.
When you post something that insults my intelligence, as you did.....

Oooo, maybe he's a sadist. Rowr. Lol, j/k.

When you post something that insults my intelligence, as you did.....

I'm beginning to think you lack any intelligence to insult. You converse like an unusually offensive but typically repetitive Elizabot.

Property is an agreement between two or more people regarding an object/s or idea/s. Not a natural right, it's a social construct.

If you don't agree with the property conclusions of your forebears, then feel free to plunder. However, remember that most people do agree with the current state of property ownership and they have the police on their side.

Property exists even in abundance:

Bob and Tom have apples.

They are equally good apples.

For some reason Tom bites Bob's apple, while Bob is holding it.

Tom is an annoying prick.

Either a beat down or a property agreement will ensue.

Theft genetically relies on the concept of property to make sense, Proudhon.

Why won't that stolen concept fallacy die?

firstly, why is it that i've only heard objectivist hacks even use the term "stolen concept fallacy"?

secondly, theft doesn't require the concept of property (and especially not property in the sense proudhon used - which branden would have known, had the cult he was near the head of at the time allowed people to read things other than the approved works...)

theft requires the concept of rightful or lawful use/possession/whatever. property contains a claim on that concept, but property itself is a bundle of rights, privileges, and obligations. proudhon argued, of course, that the system of property in place was not in fact rightful - much as most people would argue that the system of property under feudalism was not rightful either. surely even you would have no problem with the statement "feudal property is theft", right?

of course, i've told you this once or twice before - but you aren't really one for arguing in good faith anyway, are you?

I'm beginning to think you lack any intelligence to insult. You converse like an unusually offensive but typically repetitive Elizabot.

I suspect the response to this will be

*yawn*

Wake me when you have something of value to offer.


That was his reply to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10762300&postcount=110. And he does tend to get repetitive.

I'm beginning to think you lack any intelligence to insult.
You've only just begun to think? Not good.

firstly, why is it that i've only heard objectivist hacks even use the term "stolen concept fallacy"?
Because you don't get out much. I know many non-objectivists who use it. Must be a personal problem in your part.


secondly, theft doesn't require the concept of property
Yes, it does. For what can be stolen except property? Property means you have a right to it. If you're just using it--you don't have a right to it.


(and especially not property in the sense proudhon used
Even in the sense Proudhon used it.


theft requires the concept of rightful or lawful use/possession/whatever.
Property.


property contains a claim on that concept, but property itself is a bundle of rights, privileges, and obligations.
So what you're saying is that theft requires the concept of property. Thank you.

John Locke, and English political theorist states that property ownership is justified when one mixes their labor with the earth and produces. Capitalists justify property because if they pay others to work the earth they can make a profit. The best theorist in favor of property for capitalist purposes is Milton Friedman. Friedman believes that property allows the existence of a free market. Read "Capitalism and Freedom".

Friedman believes that property allows the existence of a free market. Read "Capitalism and Freedom".
Unless it is an ideal market (and no such thing exists to my knowledge) I dont see that a 'free market' is necessarily desirable so I dont see that it being allowed (not facilitated but merely not blocked) is necessarily justification for anything...

The whole "mixing labour with nature=property" notion is premised on what appears to me to be an entirely false dichotomy.

Property means you have a right to it.

no. property means that the ruling powers that be say that somebody has a right to it. it is entirely possible (and, by most people's standards, often is the case that) they are wrong.

property does not equal 'rightful use, access, etc.,' but rather 'officially sanctioned use, access, etc.' unless you hold that rightful = officially sanctioned...

no. property means that the ruling powers that be say that somebody has a right to it.
Wrong, as there have been cases of property w/o government/ruling powers.

Try again.

Classify a condominium.

are you talking about the roman use of this word, specific details of which i am unclear about, or the modern american condo? if it's condo i guess you are supposing a contradiction between the fact that an individual or group owns the building and yet rents the space to tennants. well i don't think this is a contradiction. the owner is not lending the space or otherwise freely giving it. the space between the walls is effectively being sold to the tennants while the walls and floors and ceilings remain the property of the owner. the tennant then owns the space for a strictly delimited time period and has some control over the walls, floors and ceilings by grace of the owner's consent. so the structure of a condominium is the property of the owner who bought it, the space between the walls is owned for a time by the tennants who rent it. i hope this answers your question :)

Theft genetically relies on the concept of property to make sense, Proudhon.

Why won't that stolen concept fallacy die?

oh dear, how embarrassing for you. you appear to have been outwitted by the simple irony of a catchy slogan which is hundreds of years old :rolleyes:

If you want to understand property, then read this book by a man from Peru. Hes brilliant..

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465016154/sr=8-1/qid=1145175355/ref=sr_1_1/104-3754388-4459940?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I'll sell you my copy for twice what Amazon wants for theirs; its that good; its worth that much.

Yeah, you actually were when you claimed that it creates an obligation for someone to do something.All positive rights create obligations for someone to do something, from the positive right of healthcare to the positive right of ownership.

Why wouldn't you own any land? And why wouldn't you have the ability to farm, hunt, or gather your food?If all of the land is owned already then I would have to trade either for the land or for permission to farm, hunt, or gather food on it. Since ownership is an illegitimate concept, trading would be acting as though the concept is legitimate, and this is unacceptable.

Legal regulations regarding contraception and abortion are manmade legal constructions and I believe their existence or lack there of is determinative of the existence of at least some human beings.I'd respond to this, but you are having a discussion with someone else in another thread on this issue, and he will most likely say what it is that I will say.

For the record, I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not there are natural rights, I simply view them as a good way for people to have a basic and consistent way of listing the rights they feel people should have.

Property is an agreement between two or more people regarding an object/s or idea/s. Not a natural right, it's a social construct.


Incorrect.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, altruist scum.

The problem is that if all land is owned, I would not have the ability to farm, hunt, or gather my food.

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the argument to the consequences, altruist scum?

Are you telling me that capitalism provides individuals with full power to serve their self-interests at all times?

If by "power" you mean "practical ability", then of course not--that would be despicable, as it would mean that some individuals would be required to provide such practical ability to those that could not do it themselves. Ultimately, it would result in an irresolvable contradiction.

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?

Corporate deathsquads

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the argument to the consequences, altruist scum?
Hello again, Blue.

You really need to work on your people skills. :rolleyes:

Collectivists aren't human.

Collectivists aren't human.
Do you not find it alarming when anyone starts to class a different person as sub-human?

Or are you in favour of political eugenics (or, indeed, any form of it?)?

Depends on whether he's right or not.

Tangled,

Don't troll up good threads.

I'm not.

I'm stating objective facts.

I'm not.

I'm stating objective facts.
If you believe in that Randian bullshit, otherwise not so much.

Don't troll for the troll.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

And their truth is not dependent upon anyone's accepting Objectivism. They are true regardless.

All positive rights create obligations for someone to do something,
Ethical sense.


from the positive right of healthcare
Ethical sense.


to the positive right of ownership.
How does ownership create any obligations for anyone to DO something?

Answer: it doesn't. It merely creates obligations for people to NOT DO something, namely: interfere with that person's ownership.

Now unless you want to say that not doing a specific thing is the same as doing a specific thing, thereby annihilating the law of non-contradiction and rendering your argument illogical and incoherent, you have no case.

You. Lose.


If all of the land is owned already then I would have to trade either for the land or for permission to farm, hunt, or gather food on it. Since ownership is an illegitimate concept,
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

You've yet to demonstrate that it is.

Do you not find it alarming when anyone starts to class a different person as sub-human?
Like when collectivists deny the rights of the individual.

As Hayek said: collectivism is slavery.

oh dear, how embarrassing for you.
Not for me, toots. For the idiots who use the stupid slogan.

And it's not hundreds of years old.

alright, it's 166 years old. that's near enough hundreds for your quibble to be pointless.

Wrong, as there have been cases of property w/o government/ruling powers.

so you admit the existence of different versions of 'property'? excellent.

now, do you hold that all of them are just, or might some of them amount to theft? how about amounting to theft in the same way that slavery amounts to murder?

so you admit the existence of different versions of 'property'?
Nope.

Nope.

see, here's where you look beyond hope - clearly feudal property, capitalist property, and traditional tribal property are different. they contain different bundles of rights, privileges, and obligations. they allow different people/collectivities to obtain those bundles. and they just plain follow different rules.

see, here's where you look beyond hope
No.

Collectivists aren't human.

Define "collectivist."

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the argument to the consequences?No. Show me what the fallacy is, and show me how my statement was fallacious.

How does ownership create any obligations for anyone to DO something?

Answer: it doesn't. It merely creates obligations for people to NOT DO something, namely: interfere with that person's ownership.

Now unless you want to say that not doing a specific thing is the same as doing a specific thing, thereby annihilating the law of non-contradiction and rendering your argument illogical and incoherent, you have no case.It requires people to recognize a claim of ownership as valid, and to determine which claims of ownership are valid and which aren't.

Edit: And it requires that I accept the person/officer/group who determine(s) ownership.

The problem is that if all land is owned, I would not have the ability to farm, hunt, or gather my food. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the argument to the consequences, altruist scum?

better question - are you?

No. Show me what the fallacy is, and show me how my statement was fallacious.

The fallacy of argument to the consequent.

If it is raining the ground outside will be wet. (True statement)
The ground outside is wet. (True statement)

Can we deduce from this that it is raining? No.

The ground outside is wet because I have been washing my car.

The consequence of anything is not sufficient to deduce the thing in itself, unless you can show that this is the only possible cause of the consequence.

The fallacy of argument to the consequent.

If it is raining the ground outside will be wet. (True statement)
The ground outside is wet. (True statement)

Can we deduce from this that it is raining? No.

The ground outside is wet because I have been washing my car.

The consequence of anything is not sufficient to deduce the thing in itself, unless you can show that this is the only possible cause of the consequence.

actually, i think tuib wasn't saying that jb was affirming the consequent, but was saying that his argument claimed that a proposition was untrue based on the consequences of belief in that proposition.

i think - it doesn't really make sense either way in context.

Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?
Because they purchased mineral rights and therefore own the oil. If you want, you can purchase mineral rights too (provided that the owner wants to sell) and drill for oil yourself. Many companies do this, although they survey the land first and then sell the rights on to oil companies at a profit, rather than drilling it themselves.

actually, i think tuib wasn't saying that jb was affirming the consequent, but was saying that his argument claimed that a proposition was untrue based on the consequences of belief in that proposition.

i think - it doesn't really make sense either way in context.

Tuib never does make much sense, but it was an excuse to present the affirming the consequent fallacy anyway.

Claiming that a proposition is untrue based on the consequences of the belief in that proposition is not a falacy per se, but it is incumbent on the claimant to show that a: the consequent really is a necessary consequent and not merely contingent and b: that this consequent is untrue. (Falsification of scientific theories works this way).

better question - are you?
it requires you to get your own property, its not a large leap.

How do capitalists justify owning land (or any natural resource)? Surely they exist independently of humans. What do people have to do to own the land they live on? Oil companies for instance, once they started drilling in one specific area no rival is allowed to drill there, why do they get to drill and I do not?

I own property (real estate) because when I retire (soon - woot!) I will be able to sell it and have lots of money to invest so that I won't be a burden on the state (e.g. taxpayers).